Shockley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2017cv02621 - Document 17 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16). The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/19/2018. (S,Ke)

Download PDF
Shockley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 17 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION YVONNE SCHOCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:17CV2621 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Yvonne Schockley’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, after a hearing on March 3, 2015. The Appeals Council remanded Schockley’s case for the ALJ to consider newly submitted evidence. The ALJ held a second hearing on August 2, 2016, and again denied Plaintiff’s applications. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision, thereby rendering the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. On December 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On December 3, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted a Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 16) recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision as supported by substantial evidence and made pursuant to proper legal standards. Dockets.Justia.com (1:17CV2621) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ applied proper legal procedures in weighing personal, educational, and vocational evidence, relevant medical evidence (of Plaintiff’s physical and mental health), relevant opinion evidence, a relevant third-party statement, and relevant testimonial evidence. ECF No. 16 at PageID#: 1804-22. The magistrate judge also found that the ALJ reached a decision supported by substantial evidence in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective symptom complaints. Id. at PageID#: 1826-31. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s Report were, therefore, due on December 17, 2018. Neither party has filed objections, evidencing satisfaction with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Report & Recommendation of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 16) is hereby adopted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 19, 2018 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.